The Energon Pub

We're all talking about torture and 'cruel and unusual punishment' like we actually know what these things are. Do we?

Case in point, one G'mo terrorist insisted that hearing Metallica's _Enter Sandman_ every day was torture. According to the Istanbul Protocols, using any sort of threat is torture, including threat of possible punishment. So, if you were a cop, according to IP, you couldn't tell a suspect that if he doesn't talk now, he'd better get used to the idea that Big Bubba's gonna think he sure has a purty mouth. Because that sort of threat causes the person mental anxiety, and that's torture.

According to military rules, it doesn't count as sleep deprivation until it goes beyond 96 hours (at least those were the rules back when I was in). Is sleep deprivation torture? Is keeping the light on all night in a prisoner's cell torture? Again, many human rights groups say it is.

As for cruel and unusual punishment, I seem to recall one judge getting sanctioned. Instead of juvey time, he'd sentenced a juvenile offender to go every Saturday to a certain intersection wearing a sandwich board with his crime's details written on it. That was, apparently, cruel and unusual. Unusual, yeah, but....

So, let's all be friends, hugs all around (except to animal abusers), and let's think about torture!

HK, getting locked in a room with thirty hostile freshmen who just failed their exam and are in Snivel Mode is torture.

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:And don't give me that bullshit line about how humanity has "evolved" since then either; pacifisim is the worst crime ever perpetrated on humanity.

Yes, the belief that we should not hurt one another is a terrible crime.

Yes it is because it is the belife that allows a carjacker to beat a 70 year old man nearly to death while half a dozen people look on. It is the same belife that allows a young woman to be raped in broad daylite in front of a crowd of people who did nothing.

Had I been pressent at either of those events I would either be in jail or the subject of a civil suit by people who belive that we shouldn't use force against such agressors. And that my friend is why almost no one is willing to step in and help the victim anymore.

Jar Axel wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:And don't give me that bullshit line about how humanity has "evolved" since then either; pacifisim is the worst crime ever perpetrated on humanity.

Yes, the belief that we should not hurt one another is a terrible crime.

Yes it is because it is the belife that allows a carjacker to beat a 70 year old man nearly to death while half a dozen people look on. It is the same belife that allows a young woman to be raped in broad daylite in front of a crowd of people who did nothing.

Had I been pressent at either of those events I would either be in jail or the subject of a civil suit by people who belive that we shouldn't use force against such agressors. And that my friend is why almost no one is willing to step in and help the victim anymore.

I assume you have something to back up those claims? Court cases? News stories? Or are you just saying that saving someone is the same as torturing someone?

i caught he was sayin not helping someone was letting them get tortured

Name_Violation wrote:i caught he was sayin not helping someone was letting them get tortured

But then that still doesn't make sense; the idea that violence of any kind is wrong is somehow the same as torture?

I wonder what that says about Gandhi...

Shadowman wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:i caught he was sayin not helping someone was letting them get tortured

But then that still doesn't make sense; the idea that violence of any kind is wrong is somehow the same as torture?

I wonder what that says about Gandhi...

It says alot. Pacifisim is the great enabler; when agressors don't live in fear of the consequnces of their actions is when they commit the most haneus attrocities. Just look at what Hitler did in Europe and what Mao did in Tibet.



And yes while it might take awhile I can back both of those accounts up. The car jacking occured here localy a few years ago, and the rape case I read about in a news story from my google side bar a few days ago.
Those are just two of many many cases where an attack happens in broad daylight in front of a group of people and nobody did anything. And as always you have the pundits wondering why nobody tried to help them... Its because when you do you arn't seen as a hero anymore but as having attacked the aggressor who was in the process of attacking an inocent person. These putrid excuses for civil rights groups are more concerned with the victomizers rights than whith his victims rights.

Jar Axel wrote:Its because when you do you arn't seen as a hero anymore but as having attacked the aggressor who was in the process of attacking an inocent person.

Okay, I see now...you don't know that's why no one helped. You're assuming that people thought "Hey, I don't want to get involved because stopping rape is a crime". You don't know that.

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Its because when you do you arn't seen as a hero anymore but as having attacked the aggressor who was in the process of attacking an inocent person.

Okay, I see now...you don't know that's why no one helped. You're assuming that people thought "Hey, I don't want to get involved because stopping rape is a crime". You don't know that.

Yes I do know that... How? You ask

There are two reasons:
The first is a matter of simple deduction; years ago when people weren't attacked by self righteous "civil rights" activists for doing the right thing we literally did not have this problem because people would step in and help the victim fend off their attacker.

The second is a matter of interview; many of the bystanders of these events cite that very reason as to why they did not help.

Jar Axel wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Its because when you do you arn't seen as a hero anymore but as having attacked the aggressor who was in the process of attacking an inocent person.

Okay, I see now...you don't know that's why no one helped. You're assuming that people thought "Hey, I don't want to get involved because stopping rape is a crime". You don't know that.

Yes I do know that... How? You ask

There are two reasons:
The first is a matter of simple deduction; years ago when people weren't attacked by self righteous "civil rights" activists for doing the right thing we literally did not have this problem because people would step in and help the victim fend off their attacker.

The second is a matter of interview; many of the bystanders of these events cite that very reason as to why they did not help.

Once more: you need to actually POST this news article.

You talk of news articals when I refer to local news broadcasts; Something generaly not available on the internet unless you live somplace with a large media hub.

However I did manage to find this for for you; explains the laws that are so often used against would be defenders in this day in age by the "criminal rights" activists.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fi ... fense.html

Yes I am aware that it is refering to personal self defence rather than defence of another; however it is these same laws that the ACLU and other groups use against anyone they see as violating the rights of a criminal.

Jar Axel wrote:You talk of news articals when I refer to local news broadcasts; Something generaly not available on the internet unless you live somplace with a large media hub.

And without proof, your argument is nil.

Jar Axel wrote:However I did manage to find this for for you; explains the laws that are so often used against would be defenders in this day in age by the "criminal rights" activists.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fi ... fense.html

Yes I am aware that it is refering to personal self defence rather than defence of another; however it is these same laws that the ACLU and other groups use against anyone they see as violating the rights of a criminal.

Wait...that doesn't prove your point at all. It's saying that while fighting is illegal, self-defense is not. It even says that breaking someone's jaw in self-defense, or shooting him if he pulls a knife on you is legal. (The latter of which is justifiable homicide)

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:You talk of news articals when I refer to local news broadcasts; Something generaly not available on the internet unless you live somplace with a large media hub.

And without proof, your argument is nil.

Jar Axel wrote:However I did manage to find this for for you; explains the laws that are so often used against would be defenders in this day in age by the "criminal rights" activists.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/fi ... fense.html

Yes I am aware that it is refering to personal self defence rather than defence of another; however it is these same laws that the ACLU and other groups use against anyone they see as violating the rights of a criminal.

Wait...that doesn't prove your point at all. It's saying that while fighting is illegal, self-defense is not. It even says that breaking someone's jaw in self-defense, or shooting him if he pulls a knife on you is legal. (The latter of which is justifiable homicide)

His argument is valid. Here is a news article. It happened in NY City:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carney4.html

Most people stood around and did nothing.

GetterDragun wrote:His argument is valid. Here is a news article. It happened in NY City:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carney4.html

Most people stood around and did nothing.

That doesn't say that no one helped because of fear of being sued by the criminal.

Shadowman did you bother to read the article I posted at all? Did you read any of the reference material provided in the artical? Because it talks about exactly that when and how you can use force as well as the potential reprecusions including civil suit. It also warns of the unfouded claims that can be brought against an individual by an aggressor which can cost large amounts of time and money as well as damage to a persons reputation.

Shadowman wrote:

GetterDragun wrote:His argument is valid. Here is a news article. It happened in NY City:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carney4.html

Most people stood around and did nothing.

That doesn't say that no one helped because of fear of being sued by the criminal.

Two things I have to say.
-1- Just because it's not on the Internet, doesn't mean it never happens, just ask China.

-2- When you ask for evidence, and you get it, you can't say that doesn't count. Besides, who will admit, on the record, that they let somebody get messed up because they didn't want to get sued?

Serpent O - R wrote:Would I love to have 2 minutes alone with this degenerate? Oh, Hell Yeah!

Do I believe what I would be doing to him should be illegal? Yes. [we are trying to be the civilized animal on this rock]

Do I believe that one should be punished for taking uncivilized action against him? Yes. [civilized animal, remember?]

Also, read all the posts... I answered your 'Why' on page 2.

Jar Axel wrote:Shadowman did you bother to read the article I posted at all? Did you read any of the reference material provided in the artical? Because it talks about exactly that when and how you can use force as well as the potential reprecusions including civil suit. It also warns of the unfouded claims that can be brought against an individual by an aggressor which can cost large amounts of time and money as well as damage to a persons reputation.

Yes, I did. But, get this, it still says self-defense is legal. And even so, just because someone decides to sue you doesn't mean it'll end up in court.

Serpent O - R wrote:-2- When you ask for evidence, and you get it, you can't say that doesn't count. Besides, who will admit, on the record, that they let somebody get messed up because they didn't want to get sued?

I never said it didn't count. I did, however, say it doesn't contain things he claimed it did.

Serpent O - R wrote:Would I love to have 2 minutes alone with this degenerate? Oh, Hell Yeah!

Do I believe what I would be doing to him should be illegal? Yes. [we are trying to be the civilized animal on this rock]

Do I believe that one should be punished for taking uncivilized action against him? Yes. [civilized animal, remember?]

Also, read all the posts... I answered your 'Why' on page 2.[/quote]

Alright. What was my "Why" again? I mean, I agreed with pretty much everything you said in that post, but what exactly were you answering?

I never said it didn't count. I did, however, say it doesn't contain things he claimed it did.

Now your just ignoring facts so you can back up your side of the argument.

Jar Axel wrote:

I never said it didn't count. I did, however, say it doesn't contain things he claimed it did.

Now your just ignoring facts so you can back up your side of the argument.

Alright, alright. Show me, in that article, exactly where it says no one intervened out of fear of legal repercussions.

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

I never said it didn't count. I did, however, say it doesn't contain things he claimed it did.

Now your just ignoring facts so you can back up your side of the argument.

Alright, alright. Show me, in that article, exactly where it says no one intervened out of fear of legal repercussions.

Did you even read the opening lines? Did you realy? Because that statement says you didn't.

Jar Axel wrote:Did you even read the opening lines? Did you realy? Because that statement says you didn't.

Yes I did. Did you? it said New York City Police Ignored her, but it never said out of fear of legal action. It DOES say that it was because "They don’t want photos of altercations with minorities." But then that article doesn't cite its sources, so anything's possible...

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Did you even read the opening lines? Did you realy? Because that statement says you didn't.

Yes I did. Did you? it said New York City Police Ignored her, but it never said out of fear of legal action. It DOES say that it was because "They don’t want photos of altercations with minorities." But then that article doesn't cite its sources, so anything's possible...

Did you even read what you just posted? Also I fail to see what an artical someone else posted has to do with your argument that what I posted doesn't contain what I said it does.


Edit: From the very end of the artical Serpent posted

Even as a youngster I knew that a free-market solution to crime was available. "Bashing" – which usually involved gangs of teenagers attacking adults-wouldn’t stand a chance in a community where the adults carried guns. The greatest encouragement to the wolf-packs was the certain knowledge the wolves enjoyed that their victims would be unarmed lambs. Just the possibility of lethal retaliation by the victims would have ended the mob violence. Not the government, not the mob, but an armed citizenry is the real key to bringing freedom to our streets.

Allowing New Yorkers to exercise their right to self-defense should be the most important political issue in this city. Unfortunately, its not even part of New York’s public discussion. Richard Brookhiser recently raised the gun issue in the New York Observer but with little result. It looks like we’re stuck with the Hobson’s choice of wilding wolf-packs or streets saturated with blue-coated centurions (as Brookhiser colorfully called New York’s Finest). And next summer, when the Puerto Rican parade pushes through Fifth Avenue, I’ll once again be out of town.

Again says that people are not allowed to exercise their right to self defence in dealing with these "wolf-packs"

Let's face it, folks. Mankind is just a bunch of glorified feces-flinging monkeys that wear pants. This sort of thing is the evidence of this.

Megatron (2007 movie): "Humans don't deserve to live!"

...at this point I'm kind of inclined to agree...

You can take your Gandhi stuff, morality, trying to rise above, and you can shove it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and we will NEVER rise above. Every time we think we might succeed in becoming more than just animals, some jerk just drags us right back down. The true measure of a society isn't its best, but its worst. It's easier to suck than it is to excel and it takes only a small group of people to destroy a whole society's dreams of becoming something greater.

And people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope! THIS is why!

Night Raid wrote:Let's face it, folks. Mankind is just a bunch of glorified feces-flinging monkeys that wear pants. This sort of thing is the evidence of this.

Megatron (2007 movie): "Humans don't deserve to live!"

...at this point I'm kind of inclined to agree...

You can take your Gandhi stuff, morality, trying to rise above, and you can shove it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and we will NEVER rise above. Every time we think we might succeed in becoming more than just animals, some jerk just drags us right back down. The true measure of a society isn't its best, but its worst. It's easier to suck than it is to excel and it takes only a small group of people to destroy a whole society's dreams of becoming something greater.

And people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope! THIS is why!

Wow, okay. So your whole idea is that humanity can never be better, and to even TRY to be better is foolish?

Nope. Sorry. I'm not that pessimistic. I still think humanity can be better and there's nothing you can do to convince me otherwise.

And society is judged based on it's worst? By that logic, the Twelve Apostles were pure evil because Judas sold out Jesus.

Shadowman wrote:

Night Raid wrote:Let's face it, folks. Mankind is just a bunch of glorified feces-flinging monkeys that wear pants. This sort of thing is the evidence of this.

Megatron (2007 movie): "Humans don't deserve to live!"

...at this point I'm kind of inclined to agree...

You can take your Gandhi stuff, morality, trying to rise above, and you can shove it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and we will NEVER rise above. Every time we think we might succeed in becoming more than just animals, some jerk just drags us right back down. The true measure of a society isn't its best, but its worst. It's easier to suck than it is to excel and it takes only a small group of people to destroy a whole society's dreams of becoming something greater.

And people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope! THIS is why!

Wow, okay. So your whole idea is that humanity can never be better, and to even TRY to be better is foolish?

Nope. Sorry. I'm not that pessimistic. I still think humanity can be better and there's nothing you can do to convince me otherwise.

And society is judged based on it's worst? By that logic, the Twelve Apostles were pure evil because Judas sold out Jesus.

What I mean is that it only took one person to bring the other twelve down. One person's evil intent destroyed all the good intent the rest had. One man. Just one.

There's a difference between 'can' and 'will', so be prepared to realize that trying isn't the same as succeeding.

Night Raid wrote:What I mean is that it only took one person to bring the other twelve down. One person's evil intent destroyed all the good intent the rest had. One man. Just one.

Not true; Judas is the only one seen as evil, (He sold out his best friend and mentor for money) all the rest have attained Sainthood, and several have "writing credits" (so to speak) in the Bible. Meanwhile, with Jesus's death, humanity's sins were absolved. (In Paradise Lost, his death was explained as being planned when God realized He couldn't stop original sin)

So, no, Judas didn't "bring them all down," I was using your logic to explain that just because one person is bad doesn't mean everyone else is.